Fact Checking The Sunday Shows - October 31, 2010

October 31, 2010 5:35 pm ET

Republicans' appearances on the Sunday shows this Halloween were as predictable as any mediocre horror movie, with the lone "twist" coming from Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) on ABC's This Week. Cornyn lied about President Obama's stump speech, claiming that Obama wants to make Republicans "sit in the back of the bus." That's a Glenn Beck-inspired race-baiting twist on Obama's months-old metaphor about Republicans wanting the keys to the car after they drove it into a ditch, and Cornyn should know better. Meanwhile on CNN, Michael Steele pretended that Republicans are principled deficit hawks, despite turning surpluses into trillions in debt under President Bush. On Face the Nation, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty claimed that higher taxes on the wealthy would neuter the nascent economic recovery despite overwhelming evidence that the rich don't spend more when we give them tax breaks. Most predictable of all, Sarah Palin told Fox News Sunday viewers three different lies about taxes in just a few short paragraphs.

This Week

Sen.
JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): Well President Obama himself said, Republicans can come
along for the ride but they have to sit in the back of the bus.

FACT: No, President Obama Did NOT Say
Anything About "The Back Of The Bus"

On the campaign trail, President Obama and other Democrats often use an extended metaphor
about government as a car, and elections deciding who drives and who sits in
the back seat. The phrase "back of the bus" has clear racial overtones, and despite
the fact that Obama has used the car metaphor for
months without mentioning any buses, Glenn Beck
and Fox News claimed last week that Obama was attempting to stir up racial
divides.

President Obama In Philadelphia: Republicans "Don't
Know How To Drive. They Can Ride With Us If They Want To, But They Got To Get
In The Back Seat." In a stump speech in Philadelphia, President Obama said:

Many of the Republicans who are running right now, these are the exact
same folks who spent the last decade driving our economy into a ditch.
And once we were elected, Joe and I, we put on our boots, we went down into
that ditch. It was muddy and dusty down there and it was hot. And
we started pushing on that car to get it out of the ditch. And we had a
whole bunch of folks like Joe Sestak helping us push that car out of the ditch.
(Applause.)

And every once in a while, we'd look up at the Republicans. They
were -- they had driven into the ditch, but they had gotten out and they were
kind of taking a break, fanning themselves and sipping on a Slurpee, watching
us do all the work. And every once in a while they'd say, why don't you
push harder? You're not pushing the right way, Obama. But they
didn't help.

And after pushing and pushing over these last 20 months, finally we've
got that car out of the ditch. (Applause.) Now, the car is a little
dented up. The fender is a little busted. It needs a tune-up.
But it's moving. It's pointing in the right direction. We're on
level ground now. We're starting to make repairs. And suddenly we
get a tap on our shoulder and we look back and who is it? It's the
Republicans. And they say -- what are they saying? -- they say, we want
the keys back.

AUDIENCE: No!

THE PRESIDENT: Philadelphia, they can't have the keys back. They
don't know how to drive. (Applause.) They don't know how to
drive. They can ride with us if they want, but they got to get in the
back seat. (Applause.) Because we want to go forward. We
don't want the special interests riding shotgun. We want working
families, middle-class families, up front. They're our priority.
[President Obama Remarks, 10/10/10
via WhiteHouse.gov; emphasis added]

President
Obama In Rhode Island:
Since They Drove Us Into Ditch, Republicans "Can Come For The Ride, But They
Gotta Sit In The Back." In a stump speech in Providence, Rhode Island
last week, President Obama said:

Look, I've been using this
analogy as I travel the country. Imagine the Republicans driving the
economy into a ditch. And it's a deep ditch. It's a big
ditch. And somehow they walked away from the accident, and we put on
our boots and we rappelled down into the ditch -- me and Jack and Sheldon and
Jim and Patrick. We've been pushing, pushing, trying to get that car out
of the ditch.

And meanwhile, the Republicans are standing there, sipping on a
Slurpee. (Laughter.) Fanning themselves. We're hot and sweaty
and pushing, and they're kicking dirt into the ditch. (Laughter.)
Getting it into our faces. But that's okay. We said -- every once
in a while we'd ask them, "Do you want to come down and help?" They'd
say, "No, but you're not pushing the right way, though. Push harder."

Finally, we get this car out of
the ditch, and it's banged up. It needs some body work, needs a
tune-up. But it's pointing in the right direction. The engine is
turning and it's ready to go. And we suddenly get this tap on our shoulders.
We look back, who is it? The Republicans. And they're saying,
"Excuse me, we want the keys back." You can't have the keys back.
You don't know how to drive! (Applause.) You can't have them
back. Can't do it. (Applause.) Not after we've worked this
hard.

We can't have special interests sitting shotgun.
(Laughter.) You know, we got to have middle-class families up in
front. (Applause.) We
can't -- we don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the
ride, but they got to sit in back. (Laughter.)

Look, these two years have been incredibly difficult. And not
every decision we've made has always been popular, but they've been the right
things to do because you sent me there -- you sent me there not to do what was
easy but do what was right. That's why you sent me there.
(Applause.)

And because of the steps we've taken, we no longer face the possibility
of a second depression. The economy is growing again. [President Obama
Remarks, 10/25/10
via WhiteHouse.gov; emphasis added]

President Obama In Minneapolis: Republicans "Got
To Sit In The Back Seat. We're Going To Put Middle-Class America In The
Front Seat." In a speech in Minneapolis,
President Obama said:

I know that Al Franken talked to you a little bit about the analogy of
a car being driven into the ditch -- although I guess Al embellished it a
little bit. He said there were alligators down there -- (laughter) -- I
didn't see the alligators. But it is true the
car went into the ditch. (Laughter.) And it is true that me and
Al and Amy and Mark and others, we had to climb down into the ditch. And
it is hot down there and dirty.

And we've been pushing that car,
pushing it, pushing it, pushing it. The whole time the Republicans
have been standing on the sidelines. (Laughter.) They've been
looking down, fanning themselves, sipping on a Slurpee. (Laughter.)
Kicking dirt down into the ditch. Kicking dirt in our faces. But we
kept on pushing. (Applause.)

Finally we got this car up on
level ground. And, yes, it's a little beat up. It needs to go
to the body shop. It's got some dents; it needs a tune-up. But it's
pointing in the right direction. And
now we've got the Republicans tapping us on the shoulder, saying, we want the
keys back.

You can't have the keys back.
You don't know how to drive. (Applause.) You can ride with us if
you want, but you got to sit in the backseat. (Laughter.) We're
going to put middle-class America
in the front seat. We're looking out for them. (Applause.)

I mean, you have noticed, when you want to go forward, what do you do
with your car? You put it in "D." If you want to go backwards, what
do you do? You put it in "R." (Laughter and applause.) I
don't want to go backwards. I'm going forwards, with all of you.
(Applause.)

Minnesota,
because of the steps we've taken, we no longer face the possibility of a second
depression. The economy is growing again. We've seen nine straight
months of private sector job growth. But we've still got a long way to go. [President
Obama Remarks, 10/23/10
via WhiteHouse.gov; emphasis added]

State
of the Union

CLAIM: RNC Chairman Michael Steele Claimed That A Refusal To Create Debt Is
Among "The Principles" The GOP Has "Stood For For A Long Time"

MICHAEL STEELE: When we talk
about not compromising, not compromising away on the principles that our party
[cough] excuse me, have, have run on, uh, and have stood for for a long time.
For example, we're not gonna compromise on creating more debt.

FACT: "Principles?" The GOP Knows Plenty
About Creating Debt — They Exploded The Deficit Under President Bush

Before Obama Took Office, The FY 2009 Deficit
Was Projected At $1.2 Trillion. As reported by the Washington
Times: "The Congressional Budget Office announced a projected
fiscal 2009 deficit of $1.2 trillion even if Congress doesn't enact any new
programs. [...] About the only person who was silent on the deficit
projection was Mr. Bush, who took office facing a surplus but who saw spending
balloon and the country notch the highest deficits on record." [Washington
Times, 1/8/09, emphasis
added]

CBPP: Deficit Grew By $3 TRILLION Because
Of Policies Passed From 2001 To 2007. According to the Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities: "Congressional Budget Office data show that
the tax cuts have been the single largest contributor to the reemergence of
substantial budget deficits in recent years. Legislation enacted since 2001
added about $3.0 trillion to deficits between 2001 and 2007, with nearly half of
this deterioration in the budget due to the tax cuts (about a third was due to
increases in security spending, and about a sixth to increases in domestic
spending)." [CBPP.org, accessed 1/31/10,
parentheses original]

Public And Foreign-Held Debt Skyrocketed While
Bush Was In Office. Below are two graphs prepared by the
Speaker's office showing the increase of publicly and foreign-held debt during
the years Bush was in office:

Face the Nation

Gov.
TIM PAWLENTY: If you don't extend those Bush tax cuts, all of 'em, it's
gonna send a very negative signal to the economy, it's gonna be
counterproductive.

FACT: Cutting Taxes For The
Wealthy Does Little To Stimulate The Economy

Bloomberg News: "Give The
Wealthiest Americans A Tax Cut And History Suggests They Will Save The Money
Rather Than Spend It." According
to Bloomberg News:
"Give the wealthiest Americans a tax cut and history suggests they will
save the money rather than spend it. Tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 under President
George W. Bush were followed by increases in the saving rate among the rich,
according to data from Moody's Analytics Inc. When taxes were raised under Bill
Clinton, the saving rate fell. The findings may weaken arguments by Republicans
and some Democrats in Congress who say allowing the Bush-era tax cuts for the
wealthiest Americans to lapse will prompt them to reduce their spending,
harming the economy. President Barack Obama wants to extend the cuts for
individuals earning less than $200,000 and couples earning less than $250,000
while ending them for those who earn more." [Bloomberg News, 9/14/10]

New York Times: "Research
Suggests That Tax Cuts... Have Limited Ability To Bolster The Flagging
Economy." According to the New
York Times: "The concept of lower taxes is so appealing to voters
that many embrace them as an economic cure-all. But economic research suggests
that tax cuts, though difficult for politicians to resist in election season,
have limited ability to bolster the flagging economy because they are
essentially a supply-side remedy for a problem caused by lack of demand. The
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office this year analyzed the short-term
effects of 11 policy options and found that extending the tax cuts would be the
least effective way to spur the economy and reduce unemployment. The report
added that tax cuts for high earners would have the smallest 'bang for the
buck,' because wealthy Americans were more likely to save their money than
spend it." [New York
Times, 9/11/10]

CBO: Among Eleven Proposals To Spur Economic
Growth, Cutting Income Taxes Ranks Last. Below is a chart created
by the Congressional Budget Office to show the "cumulative effects of
policy options on employment in 2010 and 2011":

Fox News Sunday

CLAIM: Sarah Palin Implied That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves

CHRIS WALLACE (host):
In England, the conservative government has just announced a new austerity
package, uh, spending cuts and tax increases, three-to-one, spending cuts over
tax increases, because they're trying to get both sides to, to buy into it.
Would you accept something like that, with massive spending cuts but also some
tax increases, if that's what you need to address the national debt, which
you're concerned about, and to fix entitlements?

SARAH PALIN: No, we don't have to compromise on that because
the premise there is false, that you have to increase taxes in order to balance
a budget. The first thing they need to look at is the spending cuts and the
hiring freezes and the zero-base budgeting. Those principles, those practices
that they haven't even begun to, um, incorporate yet in order to start
balancing budgets. It's, it's, um, a false premise there to believe that we
have to increase taxes on the American people to balance out the budgets when
we haven't done the things that just make a whole lotta common sense first in
cutting budgets. Y'have, y'know, look at
the, the Laffer curve, look at the, um, the other studies that have shown that,
uh, increased revenue is not necessarily derived from increased taxes, because
that's gonna lessen productivity in this nation.

FACT: Expert Consensus, Even Among
Conservatives, Is That Tax Cuts Do Not Pay For Themselves

Time: "If There's One Thing
That Economists Agree On, It's That These Claims Are False." According to Time: "If
there's one thing that Republican politicians agree on, it's that slashing
taxes brings the government more money... If there's one thing that economists
agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower
lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D.
who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that
the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for
themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw,
chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes
a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that
tax cuts increase revenues." [Time, 12/6/07,
emphasis added]

2006: Bush's Chief
Economic Adviser Conceded Tax Cuts Do Not Pay For Themselves. In testimony
to the Senate Budget Committee, Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Edward
Lazear testified: "Will
the tax cuts pay for themselves? As a general rule, we do not think tax
cuts pay for themselves. Certainly, the data presented above do not
support this claim." [Senate Budget Committee Hearing, 9/28/06,
via WhiteHouse.Archive.gov]

American Enterprise Institute (AEI) Economist:
"There's No Evidence" That Bush Tax Cuts "Come Anywhere Close" To Paying For
Themselves. In 2006, the Washington
Post asked former Bush economist and AEI Resident Scholar Alan Viard if the
Bush tax cuts paid for themselves: "Economists
said Bush was claiming credit where little is due. The economy has grown and
tax receipts have risen at historic rates over the past two years, but the Bush tax cuts played a small role in
that process, they said, and cost the Treasury more in lost taxes than it
gained from the resulting economic stimulus. 'Federal revenue is lower today
than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among
economists about that,' said Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist
now at the nonpartisan American Enterprise Institute. 'It's logically
possible' that a tax cut could spur sufficient economic growth to pay for
itself, Viard said. 'But there's no evidence
that these tax cuts would come anywhere close to that.'" [Washington Post, 10/17/06,
emphasis added]

Wall Street Journal: Bush Tax Cuts Return Less Than 10% Of Their
Cost In Added Tax Revenue From Economic Growth. In a 2006 editorial, the Wall Street Journal wrote: "The congressional Joint
Committee on Taxation, using conventional analyses, says making the president's
tax cuts permanent would reduce federal revenues in 2016 by $314 billion. That
is more than 10 times what the Treasury analysis suggests tax cuts would
generate by prompting more hours of work, more savings and investment and more
efficient use of resources." [Wall Street
Journal, 7/11/06]

FactCheck.org:
"Highly Misleading" To Say Tax Cuts Increase Revenues. According to
FactCheck.org: "Republican presidential candidate
Sen. John McCain has said that the major tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 have
'increased revenues.' He also said that tax cuts in general increase revenues.
That's highly misleading. In fact, the last half-dozen years have shown us that we
can't have both lower taxes and fatter government coffers. The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint
Committee on Taxation, the White House's Council of Economic Advisers and a
former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues
that are lower than they otherwise would have been - even if they spur some
economic growth. And federal revenues actually declined at the beginning of
this decade before rebounding." [FactCheck.org, 6/11/07;
emphasis added]

Nonpartisan Joint Committee On
Taxation: Bush Tax Cuts Reduced Revenues By Hundreds Of Billions Of
Dollars. According to FactCheck.org:

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the 2001 tax legislation
(the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act) would cause government
revenues to be 107.7 billion less than they would have been in the absence of
the legislation in 2004, 107.4 billion less in 2005 and 135.2 billion less in
2006. The committee's estimates for the effect of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2003 were that it would reduce otherwise projected
revenues by 148.7 billion in 2004, 82.2 billion in 2005 and 20.7 billion in
2006. The JCT makes its comparisons against the Congressional Budget Office's
receipts baselines. [FactCheck.org,
6/11/07]

Architect Of Bush
Tax Cuts: Tax Cuts Without Budget Offsets Are Really "Future Taxes." According to Bloomberg:
"You won't find a truer believer in the
big tax cuts of the George W. Bush era
than Glenn Hubbard, the
51-year-old economist who is dean of Columbia
Business School.
The Republican academic was instrumental in designing the tax cuts, first as a
Bush campaign insider and then as the president's first chief economic adviser.
The idea behind the cuts, enacted in 2001 and 2003, was to encourage work,
savings, and investment, thus stimulating long-term economic growth. Hubbard is
especially proud of the 2003 cut in taxes on dividends and capital gains, which
he calls 'the most pro- growth tax reform that anybody did since Kennedy.' Now that the Bush tax cuts are up for
renewal -- they expire on Dec. 31 unless Congress acts -- Hubbard has a queasy
feeling about them, Bloomberg Businessweek reports in its Aug. 8 issue. The
cuts, he says, have been undermined by years of deficits. Until the trajectory of spending changes, he says, 'deficits are just
future taxes. You're just talking about taxes today vs. taxes tomorrow.'"
[Bloomberg.com, 8/5/10,
emphasis added]

For years, the Republican approach to economic policy has pretty
much boiled down to this message: The right response to all problems is
cutting taxes. To bolster this
message, they rely heavily on two arguments. On the one hand, they say, cutting
taxes will increase tax revenues by generating economic growth, thus raising
tax revenue and building a surplus. (This is known as the Laffer Hypthesis). On
the other hand, Republicans claim, tax cuts are good because they create
deficits and force the government to shrink itself. (A colloquial term for this
is Starve the Beast).

The arguments are not only mutually exclusive - the weight of the
economic evidence also shows that they're both wrong. The habit of Republican policymakers to
invoke each of them at different points in time (or before different audiences)
is politically convenient but logically dishonest. It smacks of a particularly desperate defense attorney arguing both
that "my client didn't have a gun" (Laffer) and "he shot in
self-defense" (Starve the Beast).

Neither proposition accurately describes US economic history, nor provides a
sound basis for future economic policy. That is, choosing either proposition
would harm the long-term health of the US economy.

Ezra Klein: "In The Real World, Tax Cuts And Spending Increases Have
The Exact Same Affect On The Budget Deficit." According to the Washington Post's Ezra Klein: "What's remarkable about Kyl's position here is that it
appears to be philosophical. 'You should never have to offset cost of a
deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans,' he said. Never! This is
much crazier than anything you hear from Democrats. Imagine if some Democrat --
and a member of the Senate Democratic leadership, no less -- said that as a
matter of principle, spending should never be offset. He'd be laughed out of
the room. Back in the real world, tax cuts and spending increases have the
exact same affect on the budget deficit." [Washington Post, 7/12/10]

FACT: Far From Paying For Themselves,
The Bush Tax Cuts Created Massive Deficits

The Bush Tax Cuts Are The Primary Driver Of
Federal Budget Deficits Over The Next Decade. Below is a chart from
CBPP showing the deficit impacts of war spending, financial recovery spending,
the recession itself, and the Bush tax cuts:

SARAH PALIN: If
we were to increase taxes, which is what will happen because Pelosi and Reid
skipped town before allowing Congress to even take a vote on extending the tax
cuts from '01 and '03, if those tax cuts are going to, uh, expire, we're going
to see an increased tax, uh, on January first, that's a disincentive for
production and for industry and for people getting out there and working in
this country, for the job creators to be able to expand and hire more people.
So no, it's not a, a given, that um, uh, allowing those tax increases to, to
come forth, um, that's not a guarantee that the economy's gonna get back on the
right track.

FACT: Democrats "Determined To Act" On
Tax Cuts When Congress Resumes

Congress Resumes Session On November 15. According to records of House
proceedings, at 1:04 AM on September 29, 2010, "[t]he House adjourned
pursuant to H. Con. Res. 321. The next meeting is scheduled for 2:00 p.m.
on November 15, 2010." [Clerk.House.gov, accessed 10/7/10]

Axelrod: Democrats Determined To Act On Tax
Cuts Before January Expiration. From
the Washington Post:

The White House and congressional Democrats conceded
Sunday that they will probably wait until after the Nov. 2 elections to vote on
a plan to prevent tax rates from rising next year for the vast majority of
Americans.

"I doubt that we will" stage a vote before
adjourning next week, House Majority
Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said. Speaking on the Sunday talk
shows, he and White House senior adviser David Axelrod added that Democrats are nonetheless determined
to act before the tax cuts expire in January. [Washington Post, 9/26/10]

Washington
Post: "Both Parties Expect The Tax Cuts Will Be
Extended." From the Washington Post:

Republicans would not compromise on any of the issues
over the past two weeks and attacked Democrats for ending the session without
voting on the tax cuts. House Republicans even tried to block the formal
resolution that allows the chamber to adjourn, leading to an unusual 210-209
vote in which 39 Democrats joined nearly all the Republicans in opposition.

Tax rates will increase next year if Congress does not
address the issue, although both parties expect the tax cuts to be extended
when members return after the elections. [Washington Post, 9/30/10]

FACT: Democrats
Have Consistently Called For Extending 97 Percent Of Bush Tax Cuts

PolitiFact:
Dems Consistently Say Only Tax Cuts For Wealthiest Will Be Allowed To Expire. According
to the non-partisan PolitiFact.com, in their analysis of an allegation from
Rep. Mike Pence that Democrats want all tax brackets to rise:

Do Democrats want every tax
bracket to rise, as Pence suggests? In a word, no.

For many months, Democratic
officials have consistently said that they intend to let only the tax cuts for
the wealthiest individuals lapse. The
cutoff they usually suggest is $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for
married couples filing jointly. President Obama campaigned on just such a plan,
and we've logged those promises into our Obameter campaign promises
database.

[...]

Pence is right that every tax
bracket will go up if the law is not extended. Still, we think the claim that
Democrats don't want to extend the law is inaccurate. While the legislative
drafting is still in process, the Democratic majority in Congress has made
clear that it plans to extend tax cuts for all but the top couple percentage
points of the income distribution. So it's highly misleading for him to say
that Democrats actually want to see all the bill's cuts expire. Indeed, Pence's
comment verges on a scare tactic. [PolitiFact.com,7/22/10,
emphasis original]

Reuters:
"Two To Three Percent Of Americans" Are Affected By Democrats'
Proposals. According to Reuters: "Lawmakers are
mulling the renewal of tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 under former president
George W. Bush that expire at the end of this year. President Barack Obama and
his Democratic allies in Congress want to extend the lower rates for
individuals earning less than $200,000 or couples making less than $250,000.
About two to three percent of Americans fit into the upper income
categories." [Reuters, 7/21/10]

President
Obama's FY2011 Budget Calls For Extending Bush Tax Cuts For Families Making
Less Than $250,000 Per Year. As Market Watch reported
in February: "Facing a gaping deficit but aiming to spur job creation at
the same time, President Barack Obama's fiscal year 2011 budget would hit top
earners, oil companies and others while giving tax breaks to small businesses
to help them hire new workers. ... Obama wants tax breaks proposed by President
George W. Bush to expire this year. His budget would eliminate tax breaks on
those making more than $250,000 a year, a move almost certain to be opposed by
Republicans and perhaps some Democrats as the economy crawls out of the
recession. 'We extend middle-class tax cuts in this budget,' Obama said Monday
at the White House, but 'we will not continue costly tax cuts for oil
companies, investment fund managers, and those making over $250,000 a year. We
just can't afford it.'" [Market Watch, 2/1/10]

Speaker
Pelosi: High-End Tax Cuts Should End. According to The
Hill: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on
Thursday rejected extending tax cuts for the wealthiest tax bracket that
are set to expire at the end of the year. Pelosi took off the table a
short-term extension of those cuts floated by some lawmakers in her own party.
'No,' the speaker said at her weekly press conference when asked if the cuts
for the highest bracket should be extended. 'Our position has been
that we support middle-class tax cuts. ... I believe the high-end tax cuts did
not create any jobs, increased the deficit and should be repealed,' she
said." [The Hill, 7/22/10,
emphasis added]

Treasury
Secretary Geithner: We Will Extend Middle- And Lower-Income Provisions Of Bush
Tax Cuts. According to the Wall Street Journal:
"The Obama administration will allow tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans
to expire on schedule, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Thursday,
setting up a clash with Republicans and a small but vocal group of Democrats
who want to delay the looming tax increases. Mr. Geithner said the
White House would allow taxes on top earners to increase in 2011 as part of an
effort to bring down the U.S.
budget deficit. He said the White House plans to extend expiring
tax cuts for middle- and lower-income Americans, and expects to undertake a
broader revision of the tax code next year. 'We believe it is appropriate to
let those tax cuts that go to the most fortunate expire,' Mr. Geithner said at
a breakfast with reporters." [Wall Street Journal, 7/23/10,
emphasis added]

New York
Times: Obama Plan Leaves Much Of The Bush Tax Cuts In Place. The New
York Times prepared an infographic showing where President Obama seeks to
change Bush-era tax law, and where he intends to leave it unchanged:

Bruce Bartlett:
"Taxes Are Very Considerably Lower By Every Measure Since Obama Became
President." In a March Forbes
column, Bruce Bartlett, a former economic adviser to Presidents Reagan and H. W.
Bush, wrote:

For an antitax group, they don't know
much about taxes.

In short, no matter how one slices
the data, the Tea Party crowd appears to
believe that federal taxes are very considerably higher than they actually are,
whether referring to total taxes as a share of GDP or in terms of the taxes
paid by a typical family.

Tea Partyers also seem to have a very
distorted view of the direction of federal taxes. They were asked whether they
are higher, lower or the same as when Barack Obama was inaugurated last year.
More than two-thirds thought that taxes are higher today, and only 4% thought
they were lower; the rest said they are the same.

As
noted earlier, federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since
Obama became president. And given the economic circumstances, it's hard to
imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year. In fact, 40% of
Obama's stimulus package involved tax cuts. These include the Making Work
Pay Credit, which reduces federal taxes for all taxpayers with incomes below
$75,000 by between $400 and $800. [Forbes,
3/19/10;
emphasis added]

The Recovery Act Distributed Nearly $300
Billion In Tax Relief To Families And Businesses. According to
PolitiFact.com: "Nearly a third of the cost of the stimulus, $288 billion,
comes via tax breaks to individuals and businesses. The tax cuts include a
refundable credit of up to $400 per individual and $800 for married couples; a
temporary increase of the earned income tax credit for disadvantaged families;
and an extension of a program that allows businesses to recover the costs of
capital expenditures faster than usual. The tax cuts aren't so much spending as
money the government won't get -- so it can stay in the economy. Of that $288
billion, the stimulus has resulted in $119 billion worth of tax breaks so
far." [PolitiFact.com, 2/17/10]

Tax Policy
Center Co-Director: With Taxes At 60-Year Low,
"The Rise Of The Tea Party...Is Really Hard To Understand." As reported by
CBSNews.com: "Meanwhile,
taxes are at their lowest levels in 60
years, according to William Gale, co-director of the Tax Policy Center and
director of the Retirement Security Project at the Brookings Institution. 'The
relation between what is said in the tax debate and what is true about tax
policy is often quite tenuous,' Gale told Hotsheet. 'The rise of the Tea Party
at at time when taxes are literally at their lowest in decades is really hard
to understand.' [CBSNews.com, 4/15/10;
emphasis added]

GOP Rep. McHenry:
"Marginal Tax Rates Are The Lowest They've Been In Generations, And All We Can
Talk About Is Tax Cuts." As reported by Time
Magazine, North Carolina Republican Patrick McHenry said: "Marginal tax
rates are the lowest they've been in generations, and all we can talk about is
tax cuts... The people's desires have changed, but we're still stuck in our old
issue set." [Time Magazine, 5/7/09]

Actual Tax Burdens Are Much Lower Than Many Tea Party Activists
Realize. In a March Forbes column, Bruce Bartlett, a former economic adviser to Presidents Reagan and H. W. Bush,
wrote:

Tea Partyers were asked how much the federal government
gets in taxes as a percentage of the gross domestic product. According to
Congressional Budget Office data, acceptable answers would be 6.4%, which
is the percentage for federal income taxes; 12.7%, which would be for both
income taxes and Social Security payroll taxes; or 14.8%, which would represent
all federal taxes as a share of GDP in 2009...

Tuesday's Tea Party crowd, however, thought that federal
taxes were almost three times as high as they actually are. The average
response was 42% of GDP and the median 40%. The highest figure recorded in all
of American history was half those figures: 20.9% at the peak of World War II
in 1944.

To follow up, Tea Partyers were asked how much they
think a typical family making $50,000 per year pays in federal income taxes.
The average response was $12,710, the median $10,000. In percentage terms this
means a tax burden of between 20% and 25% of income.

Of course, it's hard to know what any particular
individual or family pays in taxes, but according to IRS tax tables, a single
person with $50,000 in taxable income last year would owe $8,694 in federal
income taxes, and a married couple filing jointly would owe $6,669. [Forbes, 3/19/10;
emphasis added]